Talk:South Pacific (musical)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Emile

• The part of Emile deBecque was not specially written for Ezio Pinza. DeBecque had been a major character in some of Michener's short stories, which served as the basis of the play.66.1.40.242 19:05, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think that the point is that the role in the musical play was conceived for Ezio Pinza - if not at the immediate outset then before long and, I believe, well before the writing was finished - not that the character was invented by Rodgers and Hammerstein for Ezio Pinza. Christopher W, 29 May 2006

>>I think that the point is that the role in the musical play was conceived for Ezio Pinza<< This is simply wrong, although I am not going to change the page. According to Rodgers' autobiography, director Joshua Logan brought to Rodgers the idea of dramatizing the Mitchener story "Fo' Dolla" concerning Cable and Liat and was going to option only that story if they were interested. R&H decided to proceed with the project but had Logan option the entire book of stories in case they later felt the need for additional material. As the writing progressed, they became dissatisfied, because, as Rodgers states "it dawned on us that on stage it looked like another variation of 'Madama Butterfly'. Although we liked the story we became convinced it that was not substantial enough or original enough to make a full evening's entertainment." The creative team then settled on the story "Our Heroine" involving Nellie and de Becque. Later they realized they could entertwine the stories even though in the book the two couples never meet or interact. Only well into the writing was Rodgers "by a remarkable coincidence" contacted by the West Coast producer of musicals Edwin Lester, who had Ezio Pinza under contract but no material suitable for him and a play-or-pay deadline. Did Rodgers and Hammerstein by any chance have anything appropriate for him? Well, guess what, they did.... So R&H were writing the part of de Becque long before Pinza was even remotely involved in the project. - Steve L.

BTW, Rodgers also says they did have Martin in mind for Nellie when they decided to use "Our Heroine", before they began writing the part. They knew her work well as she had starred in the national tour of Annie Get Your Gun for them the year before (R&H did not write AGYG but they produced it.) Martin at that point was a Broadway and former Hollywood star but not quite in the same league as Merman. It was South Pacific that gave her that status. Pinza, however, was definitely brought in at a later point when the writing was well underway, as described above. Martin then famously refused to sign a contract until she was given personal assurance from Rodgers that the vocal writing would not favor Pinza to her disadvantage. Steve L.

Was it that the vocal writing would not favour Pinza to her disadvantage or that they would not be required to sing together because of their differing musical styles (and no doubt his more sonorous voice) — but not entirely the same thing? Ondewelle (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• The on-locations shots were done on Kauia, not in Malaysia.66.1.40.242 19:05, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Someone linked the character "Bloody Mary" to the historical queen, Bloody Mary. Took out the link. 208.20.251.27 20:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the whole section on 'political incorrectness' is frankly pointless. Firstly, the musical's narrative is not 'politically incorrect'. The points made are inaccurate and no justification anyway. Secondly, there was no such thing as 'political correctness' when it was written; I don't see why South Pacific should have to endure "criticism" for it in that case. And that's another thing: what criticism? Who's criticised it? I'm removing that section. --195.92.67.68 15:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Happy Talk "political incorrectness"

I've just found this, an article about the TV show written before it was shown. It seems fairly authoritative. If no one refutes it within a week or so, I'll remove the reference to "political incorrectness" in the article. Hayford Peirce 00:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

http://www.theatermania.com/content/news.cfm/story/1275

The key paragraph reads: "There are a couple of musical casualties. "Happy Talk" was never filmed because it didn't fit in smoothly with the new adaptation--not, we have been assured by a R&H spokesperson, because it was "politically incorrect" (à la, "I'm a Polynesian, Too"), as had been previously rumored. The lovely Nellie Forbush-Lieutenant Cable duet "My Girl Back Home" was filmed but had to be dropped because of time constraints. That song suffered the same fate on the road to Broadway in 1949, but was restored to the 1958 Josh Logan movie version; the Close-Connick rendition may be included on the upcoming Sony soundtrack CD and, with any luck, the future DVD release."

legacy

I deleted the reference to Gilligan's Island. The show had nothing to do with navy sailors stranded, etc. The Minnow was a tour boat. The whole legacy section is reaching a bit. McHale's Navy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.56.127.199 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Separate film article

Yes, the film and stage plays should be separate entries, because they are different categories. This should be the rule for all stage plays that have been adopted into films and/or TV shows, not only for the obvious reasons, but because they often have different plots, casts, producers, directors, songs, etc. -- Added by someone in 2006?

Yes, would someone kindly separate the film? It's a major film and needs its own article. -- Ssilvers 18:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:South Pacific.jpg

Image:South Pacific.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:South pac reba 2005.jpg

Image:South pac reba 2005.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:South pacific bway 1949.jpg

Image:South pacific bway 1949.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Article improvement

Now that this article has a good plot summary, the next thing it needs is a "Background" or "history" section, about how the musical came to be written and brought to the stage. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Super! You're really bringing the quality of this article up. How about a Critical reception section (lower down), discussing some of the early reviews and later assessments of the show, as well as, perhaps, some information about how the show fared at the box office and its place in musical theatre history? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm so excited this article got promoted to B-Class! I'll start working on a critical reception section as soon as I can!MarianKroy (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I added a Critical Reception and Legacy section!MarianKroy (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks muchly! I'll take a look. What's your next Wikiproject? If you're at loose ends, Camelot could sure use some help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I could do some work on Camelot, but I'm not as familiar with the show. I'll certainly try, though. I'll see what kind of reference material I can dig up for it.MarianKroy (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Tony Awards

The article shows that the original (1949) production won 9 Tonys. When I put in the specific Tony Awards, I came up with 10. (I used the IBDB). Looking at the official Tony site, it shows that Jo Mielziner won the Tony in 1949 for "Scenic Design" "(Sleepy Hollow / Summer and Smoke / Anne of the Thousand Days / Death of a Salesman / South Pacific)" Tony Award listing for Jo Mielziner. The rest of the Tonys for South Pacfic were awarded in 1950 (again, per the Tony site). I'd say that South Pacific won 10 Tonys (even though the Scenic Design to Mielziner was for several shows). I'm changing the 9 → 10. JeanColumbia (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I remember being confused about this in the past. Thanks for clearing it up. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Is 11 nominations a record for a revival? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Martha Wright

An editor has added that Martha Wright performed, as Mary Martin's replacement, 1447 performances. I changed that, based on two references, to 1047. Editor has changed back to 1447 and I have reverted. I shall stop here, mindfull as always of WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR. For the record, this is a copy of the note I left on said editor's talk page:

"Re: Martha Wright in "South Pacific (musical)": I found two sources, one that said 1047 and one approximately 1040. They are included as footnote references in the article. Do you have any WP:RS that would WP:VERIFY the 1447 number of performances? (By the way, since Mary Martin did 900 performances and the show ran for 1,925 performances, the 1447 for Wright seems impossible.) Thanks, JeanColumbia (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)"

JeanColumbia (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:South pacific film.jpg

The image File:South pacific film.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

South Pacific Revival Question

I saw South Pacific on 10/18/08 on Broadway. While there another atendee told us about a stipulation by Rogers and Hammerstein that the play only be produced with a full orchestra. I have never seen this anywhere else and wondered if it was true? 1pound1pound (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of "Orientalism" criticism

I haven't looked at this article in awhile, and today I was surprised to find the following paragraph in the critical reception section:

Despite historical recognition of South Pacific's message for an end to racism, one 2008 analysis of the show argues that its story still defines an "orientalist" reality, where native characters take on "exotic background roles" in relation to Americans. In addition to that, it argues, the character relationships have deep undercurrents of sexism and child abuse, where underage, voiceless, submissive Asian daughters are sold off to have sex with older, powerful military men.[29]

Here's the original article it references: [1] The article itself contains factual errors (it says Mary Martin starred in the movie version, for example) as well as broad, and, in my opinion, somewhat inaccurate generalizations (describing Cable: "he's a pedophile"). I think Cable is in his 20's, and if Liat is an older teen, that's not really too bad of an age gap, especially when one considers that throughout most of Western and non-Western history, it has been the norm for people to get married in their late teen years. Keep in mind that the very concept of adolescence did not really exist until the 20th century, and did not really come into being fully until the prosperous 1950's. The whole article seems very biased to me, and I don't think it's really a good source for a supposedly neutral encyclopedia. This is the first time I have read anything criticizing South Pacific for being overtly racist, and it is perhaps the angriest musical theatre review I've ever seen. I understand that there might be some people who hold this viewpoint of South Pacific. However, I think this quote from Jimbo Wales applies to this situation:

If you have an article about the moon which treats equally the idea that the moon is made of rocks, and the idea that the moon is made of cheese, you don't have neutrality, you have extreme POV pushing for a radical minority view! How, in practice, to sort out a proper sense of proportion and balance is always going to be tricky and involve thoughtful consultation and dialog, of course. There is no magic formula. But a recognition that some views are widely held and grounded in a reasonable analysis of evidence, and that some views are extreme fringe views and not based in evidence, is pretty important to achieving neutrality.--Jimbo Wales, 18 May, 2008

If no one has any significant objections, I will remove the sentences concerning this viewpoint. I thought I would bring it up on the talk page first so I didn't blithely delete something that might be worth keeping. MarianKroy (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous, white-washing deletion. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-ayers- "Rick Ayers is an Adjunct Professor in education at University of San Francisco and teaches at UC Berkeley. He is a PhD candidate in the Language, Literacy, and Culture program at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Education. He received his Masters in Education at Mills College (1997) and taught at Berkeley High School from 1995 to 2006. He has worked as a Master Teacher for KQED Education Department, on the Teacher Advisory Board for Youth Speaks, as a teacher trainer for the Bay Area Writing Project, as a fellow at the Institute on Media and American Democracy, Harvard University, and as a core team member of the Diversity Project."

This page is supposed to be a source for well-rounded interpretation of the work, not a homage to your fond memories of seeing it. You can't justify whitewashing away critiques by simply saying they're "fringe" and that the original critique has some mistakes. ALL CRITIQUES HAVE SOME MISTAKES. This may be a "Radical minority view," but it's one provided by an educated and informed reviewer, and one which is backed-up by evidence from the piece itself. **We're not talking about science or a factual event; we're talking about modern, informed interpretation of art using the orientalism-informed approach.** 74.88.207.52 (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Date of book

The article (in the first paragraph) states that the book was published in 1946 ("Pulitzer Prize-winning 1946 book Tales of the South Pacific"), but the article on Michener, in its list of publications, gives the date 1947. It's probable that the article on Michener is correct and this article incorrect, but this discrepancy needs to be resolved by someone who has easy access to a library with the book or some other authoritative source. Bill Jefferys (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the first edition of novel was 1947. (See BookFinder.com, etc.) Softlavender (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity of the children

The ethnicity of Emile's children in the article has lately gone back and forth between "half-Melanesian" and "half-Polynesian." I decided to check the script, and it reads "Eurasian" [2], so I've changed it to that. The sentence should definitely not read half-Melanesian, for Melanesians are negroes. The sentence could acceptably say "half-Polynesian," for more clarity for the reader, but the script itself says "Eurasian." Later on, the script is more specific and calls them half-Polynesian: [3], so I've changed the article accordingly. Softlavender (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)